The Evening Standard has an editorial today which proposes a massive increase in MPs’ pay. This follows the suggestion by Sir Patrick Cormack that MPs’ pay should be doubled from the present £65,000, but at the same time they should lose their expenses.

The editorial is basically arguing that the present system is unsustainable, and that it would be more transparent to pay MP’s an up-front salary reflecting what should be an honourable and noble calling to serve one’s fellow contrymen rather than a chance to make a quick packet. And if you want duck houses or a Remembrance Day wreath then buy your own, sunshine. The acceptance that such a move would be unpopular is acknowledged in the editorial but there is certainly much sense in a bottom line what-you-see-is-what-you-get salary. After all, unless you are one of the 6 million unemployed or a contractor then thats what we all get at the end of the month anyway.

In many ways the Evening Standard offers a false argument. Pay MP’s £65k with the ability to double it through creative and dodgy (sometimes fraudulent) accounting, or just pay them double up front and save everyone the hassle of getting a calculator out. It is cost-neutral unless you include a few out-of-work accountants. (note: not according to the TPA, see later)

Or is it more complicated? There are other suggestions of course (apart from the ones involving bulk importation of piano-wire). For example in the Spectator’s Coffee House Pete Hoskin argues for direct public involvement in deciding MPs’ pay.

The Taxpayers Alliance weigh in with an article on CentreRight condemning the idea of £130k and listing 7 good arguments against it. The Comments have only just started coming in over there but already there is a healthy argument brewing.

For many Labour MP’s this is a pointless discussion though. They won’t be around to see it…